The concept of 380 vs more powerful rounds

This is mainly for the people that always jump into a discussion of the 380 round with, why carry a 380 when you can carry a bigger round?

A lot of people just can't seem to grasp the concept that a 380 round is effective enough to be a viable self defense round, but do these people really have any facts to back that view up.

Does anyone really know how many times the 380 has saved someone's life compared to how many times a larger cartridge like 45, or 40, etc has saved lives? I'm not talking about killing someone, I'm talking about self-defense.

The fact is I just don't need to carry a large heavy recoiling pistol for the purpose of self defense.

Now if I were in Afghanistan chasing down some Taliban, or a cop chasing some criminal that would be a different story, but that's not why I carry.

If you enjoyed reading about "The concept of 380 vs more powerful rounds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!

mljdeckard

December 4, 2012, 12:51 PM

Do YOU have statistics to back up YOUR assertion?

The ALL suck. Some suck more than others. I won't tell people to NEVER carry a .380, but if they do, I will tell them to use modern ammo from the premium manufacturers that push it into 9mm power rangs.

Gary A

December 4, 2012, 12:53 PM

kokapelli - you are right, in my view. One of the most common mistakes people make (including me, at times, though I try to avoid it) is in insisting on answering questions that have not been asked. A persistent, related, and usually more sinister corollary is insisting to believe that one's personal beliefs and choices should be adopted by everyone else. Liberals are not the only people who think they know what others should do, think, believe, and choose. (They may be the most annoying, though.).

The Lone Haranguer

December 4, 2012, 12:55 PM

IMO, the .380's raison d'etre is that you can make the gun smaller for specialized deep concealment, BUG, etc., roles. In the same size gun - and within reason - why handicap yourself with a .380 when you can have 9mm Luger power? Why not take every advantage you can get? In guns Kahr PM9-sized and larger, 9mm Luger does not have excessive recoil.

Orion8472

December 4, 2012, 12:56 PM

Agree. Use a .380acp, but make sure you're using the newest and best projectiles offered.

I carry a .380acp all the time. Sure, it isn't up to the "power" of other calibers, . . . but realistically, I may never find myself in a position to even NEED to pull it out for defense. It is there, should the need arrise, and I am confident enough that it would be useful. Remember, no one wants extra holes in them. The odds that you'll be attacked by someone on crack is pretty low.

Rubber_Duck

December 4, 2012, 12:57 PM

There are worse calibers than the .380 ACP. I would feel comfortable enough carrying a .380 because it is my ability to shoot quickly and accurately that will bring me home, not the cartridge used. Mindset, skill set, tool set, in that order.

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 12:59 PM

IMO, the .380's raison d'etre is that you can make the gun smaller for specialized deep concealment, BUG, etc., roles. In the same size gun - and within reason - why handicap yourself with a .380 when you can have 9mm Luger power? Why not take every advantage you can get? In guns Kahr PM9-sized and larger, 9mm Luger does not have excessive recoil.
This is exactly what I'm talking about.

I have a PM9 but usually carry my P238 because I can shoot it better and it carries much better in my pocket.

SigMic

December 4, 2012, 01:03 PM

Most of us who have .380s have them because of their size. I personally own an LCP for those times when my main gun (G19) on my hip just won't work. Then I carry my LCP in a pocket holster.

But, I would much rather carry the G19 with it's larger capacity, more powerful ammo. It is much more accurate (due to longer sight radius and far better sights). It is easier to handle - recoil of G19 is better than the LCP.

All around, I'd much rather carry a double stack 9mm.....but when you can't, you drop down to the .380. It's better than not having one, but not my first choice.

Frank Ettin

December 4, 2012, 01:05 PM

There are four ways in which shooting someone stops him:

psychological -- "I'm shot, it hurts, I don't want to get shot any more."
massive blood loss depriving the muscles and brain of oxygen and thus significantly impairing their ability to function
breaking major skeletal support structures
damaging the central nervous system.

Depending on someone just giving up because he's been shot is iffy. Probably most fights are stopped that way, but some aren't; and there are no guarantees.

Breaking major skeletal structures can quickly impair mobility. But if the assailant has a gun, he can still shoot. And it will take a reasonably powerful round to reliably penetrate and break a large bone, like the pelvis.

Hits to the central nervous system are sure and quick, but the CNS presents a small and uncertain target. And sometimes significant penetration will be needed to reach it.

The most common and sure physiological way in which shooting someone stops him is blood loss -- depriving the brain and muscles of oxygen and nutrients, thus impairing the ability of the brain and muscles to function. Blood loss is facilitated by (1) large holes causing tissue damage; (2) getting the holes in the right places to damage major blood vessels or blood bearing organs; and (3) adequate penetration to get those holes into the blood vessels and organs which are fairly deep in the body. The problem is that blood loss takes time. People have continued to fight effectively when gravely, even mortally, wounded. So things that can speed up blood loss, more holes, bigger holes, better placed holes, etc., help.

So as a rule of thumb --

More holes are better than fewer holes.
Larger holes are better than smaller holes.
Holes in the right places are better than holes in the wrong places.
Holes that are deep enough are better than holes that aren't.
There are no magic bullets.

And sometimes a .380 might not be enough because sometimes even a .357 Magnum isn't necessarily enough. LAPD Officer Stacy Lim (http://www.lapdonline.org/inside_the_lapd/content_basic_view/27327#Stacy%20Lim) was shot in the chest with a .357 Magnum and still ran down her attacker, returned fire, killed him, survived, and ultimately was able to return to duty.

56hawk

December 4, 2012, 01:12 PM

A lot of people just can't seem to grasp the concept that a 380 round is effective enough to be a viable self defense round, but do these people really have any facts to back that view up.

A lot of people dispute the findings, but Marshall and Sanow is the only statistical analysis of handgun effectiveness that I know of. They found 380s to be between 51% and 75% and 9mm to be between 81% and 94% depending on ammo used. That's a pretty big difference as far as I'm concerned.

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 01:45 PM

A lot of people dispute the findings, but Marshall and Sanow is the only statistical analysis of handgun effectiveness that I know of. They found 380s to be between 51% and 75% and 9mm to be between 81% and 94% depending on ammo used. That's a pretty big difference as far as I'm concerned.
If you're willing to accept the Marshall and Sanow statistics fine, but I tend to believe the growing number of people that don't.

I was a member of Marshall's "stopping power.net" board for a while, but found Marshall to be, well I best not say, but less than believable and a bully that would kick anyone out that disagreed with him.

jem375

December 4, 2012, 02:00 PM

If you're willing to accept the Marshall and Sanow statistics fine, but I tend to believe the growing number of people that don't.

I was a member of Marshall's "stopping power.net" board for a while, but found Marshall to be, well I best not say, but less than believable and a bully that would kick anyone out that disagreed with him.
Of course then you went and did research of thousands of shootings yourself instead of reading what he researched?...

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 02:04 PM

Of course then you went and did research of thousands of shootings yourself instead of reading what he researched?...
How do you know what I did or did not do? You can believe whatever you want but don't make assumptions as to what I do or do not do.

jimbo555

December 4, 2012, 02:07 PM

I spent a lot of time and money searching for the perfect compromise in comfort and power,and I decided for me full size and high capacity is doeable for every day carry. A handgun that is accurate,a service caliber and high capacity will not fit in a pocket. If your going to carry on a belt you might as well go full size. For me it's a m&p9. My 380 is for backup and special conditions. Of course what works for me won't work for everyone,I also live in the free state of Georgia and printing is not an issue. Generally speaking a full size pistol is more reliable,has a longer sight radius and higher capacity than a smaller pistol.

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 02:09 PM

Most studies which look at handgun caliber effectiveness are well-meaning, but flawed in their approach. After reading a lot of them, and their reviews, I'm *starting* to get a good idea of what goes into handgun wounding mechanics.

With that said, I think the .380 is fine, the problem is most people who buy a .380 also get some fast-expanding JHPs that won't penetrate very deep. Something with more energy, like a 9, is more likely to penetrate deeper without getting that one specific brand of ammunition.

The other reason is that people mention the size...well, there are very few .380s that have a comfortable size grip. Most are for deep concealment. Even less of these .380s are available to the public (why the Glock .380 is illegal here really baffles me). So even though the .380 has the least energy of any of my handguns, it's the only one that hurts my hand when I shoot it.

Now, I'm not going to mock people for carrying a .380, but personally it just wasn't for me, and I can see why people mock it.

jem375

December 4, 2012, 02:16 PM

How do you know what I did or did not do? You can believe whatever you want but don't make assumptions as to what I do or do not do.
I asked a question, if you don't want to answer it, don't...

jem375

December 4, 2012, 02:22 PM

In my opinion, any caliber less than a 9MM is foolish for self defense when carrying. I carry a 45ACP and sometimes a 9MM, and that's just plain good sense in this age of people high on drugs or bent on robbery or assault..

weblance

December 4, 2012, 02:22 PM

IMO, the .380's raison d'etre is that you can make the gun smaller for specialized deep concealment, BUG, etc., roles. In the same size gun - and within reason - why handicap yourself with a .380 when you can have 9mm Luger power? Why not take every advantage you can get? In guns Kahr PM9-sized and larger, 9mm Luger does not have excessive recoil.

I see these comments all the time. Why carry a 380 when there are 9mm guns the same size as the 380s. These sub compact 9mms are not the same size and size isnt the issue for me anyway, its the weight. The Kahr you mention is 17 oz empty. The LCP is 9oz, the Keltec P32 is 6oz. No one will argue that the 380 or 32acp is as effective as the 9mm. Try lugging around a 20oz gun in your pocket. I will only pocket carry, so for me its an LCP or P32 or Smith Airweight. When someone comes out with a REASONABLY priced 9mm that weighs 10oz loaded, I will be all over that, and only then, will the argument over 380 vs something more powerful, really be over.

Frank Ettin

December 4, 2012, 02:24 PM

If you're willing to accept the Marshall and Sanow statistics fine, but I tend to believe the growing number of people that don't.How do you know what I did or did not do?I guess this raises a question in my mind about what exactly you're looking for or hoping to get out of this.

The thing is that there's no magic information out there. There have been a number of studies done. They all have their flaws and their critics. And one can wonder if there really is a definitive answer possible given all the variable involved.

There's no doubt that a .380 has been used effectively in self defense, but there have most likely been times when it wasn't that effective. And on the flip side, there have been times when a .45 or a .357 Magnum wasn't immediately effective. But overall, based on an understanding of the physiology of stopping, a more powerful cartridge using a larger diameter bullet is more likely to effective more of the time.

And handgun cartridges are generally underpowered in any case.

There will always be a trade-off, so you need to make your decision. You can choose greater convenience and accept the possibility of reduced effectiveness. Or you can learn to live with greater inconvenience in exchange for a probability of somewhat greater effectiveness.

beatledog7

December 4, 2012, 02:29 PM

While the decision to draw is in effect a decision to shoot, we should keep in mind that it is still possible that presenting your firearm will be enough to terminate the threat, which is your goal.

The assailant who just plain doesn't want to get shot could conceivably be quick enough in responding favorably to your presentation that you get to not shoot him. Rest assured, no part of his snap decision to stop attacking is based on his assessment of what cartridge you have in the chamber.

I'm currently assessing a recently acquired .380 (not a pocket gun) as a CCW, and it's looking good. I'll be loading 95gr FMJ rounds. Regarding .380 as a carry round, I'm confident in two things: First, if I have to shoot an attacker, I'll score hits and he'll bleed heavily. Second, my attacker will never decide to keep coming at he because he can tell all I have is a .380.

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 02:30 PM

I see these comments all the time. Why carry a 380 when there are 9mm guns the same size as the 380s. These sub compact 9mms are not the same size and size isnt the issue for me anyway, its the weight. The Kahr you mention is 17 oz empty. The LCP is 9oz, the Keltec P32 is 6oz. No one will argue that the 380 or 32acp is as effective as the 9mm. Try lugging around a 20oz gun in your pocket. I will only pocket carry, so for me its an LCP or P32 or Smith Airweight. When someone comes out with a REASONABLY priced 9mm that weighs 10oz loaded, I will be all over that, and only then, will the argument over 380 vs something more powerful, really be over.

See that's actually why I shied away from the .380. I have an LCP. By combination of it being so small that only a small portion of my hand absorbs the recoil, and so light that the gun doesn't absorb any, the LCP hurts. So I belt-carry a double-stack 9.

One mistake I made in the past is to assume that 9mm and .380 are basically the same, just the 9mm will go deeper. The 9mm also has the potential to expand wider than the .380 if penetrating to the same depth, so if both rounds penetrate about the same, you'll still see slightly better performance out of the 9.

ETA:

While the decision to draw is in effect a decision to shoot, we should keep in mind that it is still possible that presenting your firearm will be enough to terminate the threat, which is your goal.

In that case, we should all just buy the cheapest and/or smallest firearm we can find, because we probably won't need to shoot anyway. In reality, I don't choose my firearm based on psychological stops.

PRM

December 4, 2012, 02:34 PM

When someone comes out with a REASONABLY priced 9mm that weighs 10oz loaded, I will be all over that, and only then, will the argument over 380 vs something more powerful, really be over.

LOL - I'll keep my Walther .32, not because its the top of the food chain, but because over the last 30+ years, I have shot uncounted rounds (thousands) down range with it and it does what I ask. I'm not one to jump ship just because someone comes out with something new.

If your comfortable with a different caliber, good for you. I'll take practice and familiarity as a part of my choice.

weblance

December 4, 2012, 02:37 PM

There will always be a trade-off, so you need to make your decision. You can choose greater convenience and accept the possibility of reduced effectiveness. Or you can learn to live with greater inconvenience in exchange for a probability of somewhat greater effectiveness.

There it is in a nut shell. I feel very confident that the Keltec P32, with 11 rounds, in my pocket, will get me out of any situation short of an all out urban war. I doubt that will happen anytime soon in my travels to the bank, or grocery store.

Teachu2

December 4, 2012, 02:43 PM

Defensive handguns are tradeoffs, just like any other mechanical device. Light weight is easy to carry, harder to shoot. Same for small size.

Lots of humans have been killed with .22LR weapons - but I won't carry smaller than 9mm, and still prefer a .45.

R.W.Dale

December 4, 2012, 02:45 PM

I think folks get too caught up on 380's shortcomings compared to "service " handgun calibers and overlook another excellent caliber 32acp.

Yes 380's are much much smaller than 9's. But that also makes them a real handful to shoot accurately and fast. The same gun in 32 suddenly becomes something you can control and get accurate hits with.

As to ammunition its my opinion that the latest rapid expansion super special SD loads in mousegun calibers are absolutely the wrong way to go. Once bullet velocity and weight drops below 1000/100 penatration becomes severely hampered if any expansion occours.

If you accept this, and many do. With these fmj only rounds why not opt for less recoil, faster followups and one more round and get a 32

posted via that mobile app with the sig lines everyone complaints about

The Lone Haranguer

December 4, 2012, 02:47 PM

kokapelli said:I have a PM9 but usually carry my P238 because I can shoot it better and it carries much better in my pocket.
A gun you can shoot and hit with better, as well as have with you, certainly has much going for it, but don't be under any illusions that you didn't trade off any cartridge power. In order to attain the other qualities, you sacrificed some.

weblance: Where did I say 9mm subcompacts are the same size as .380 pocket pistols? I didn't, and they aren't.

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 02:53 PM

I asked a question, if you don't want to answer it, don't...
I may have over reacted to your post and yes I did see the "?" but took it as sarcasm rather than a serious question.

To answer your question, yes I have read Sanow and Marshall's statistics, but based on other analysis of they're work I do not consider they're work reliable.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 02:54 PM

lol .380, I hope you never have to shoot someone with that crappy caliber...god forbid if the bad guy takes cover behind a metal trash can or something.

There is no reason you can't carry a bigger caliber.

I like .40 the best in a full size, but 9mm will do in smaller pistols.

The whole reason to carry in the first place is to stop the attacker.

Fiv3r

December 4, 2012, 02:59 PM

I've said it before, but the .380 is what I carry when I "can't carry a gun". I mean that not as a disparaging dig at the caliber. I sure as hell would not want to be shot with one. If I were a criminal looking for a soft target and an LCP was shakingly thrust into my face as victim started to white-knuckle the trigger...I'd be out of there in a hurry.

However, I only carry the LCP when I absolutely HAVE to. In the winter I carry a large .45 or big bore revolver because I can comfortably dress around it. On warmer days or when concealment is a real issue but I can still get away with a larger gun, I MUCH prefer my Glock 26. I feel WAY better carrying 10+1 rounds of jhp of 9mm over 6+1 of .380.

That said, there are days when I can't carry the Glock. In the summer, my dress attire is a company shirt tucked into jeans. I'm a contractor, and I can't wear a sloppily untucked shirt or jeans 2 sizes too big to hide a pistol. The LCP goes into a back pocket holster, and I go about my day lightly armed. Same thing when I go to my mom and stepdad's. They aren't gun folks at all. I'm not trying to change their minds. I respectfully carry my LCP in my back pocket.

There is a place for a smaller gun. It's not an IDEAL situation to get caught only having a slim .380 on your person if something nasty goes down, but then again it's not an ideal situation to have to defend yourself using deadly force at all. As has been said many, many times, "beats a sharp stick".

mavracer

December 4, 2012, 03:05 PM

There will always be a trade-off, so you need to make your decision. You can choose greater convenience and accept the possibility of reduced effectiveness. Or you can learn to live with greater inconvenience in exchange for a probability of somewhat greater effectiveness.
If we just accept that what would we argue about. lol

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 03:06 PM

kokapelli said:
A gun you can shoot and hit with better, as well as have with you, certainly has much going for it, but don't be under any illusions that you didn't trade off any cartridge power. In order to attain the other qualities, you sacrificed some.

weblance: Where did I say 9mm subcompacts are the same size as .380 pocket pistols? I didn't, and they aren't.
Certainly a 9mm has more power than a 380, but my point is so many people feel they need to jump into 380 threads to try and convince everyone that they really need to carry a 9 rather than a 380.

I think that most, if not all of the people here are fully aware and know the 9mm is more powerful than a 380, but many, me being one of them prefer to carry a 380 on a regular basis and believe it just isn't necessary to carry a larger and more powerful pistol.

I guess what I'm trying get across is, is do you really believe that the 380 is not effective and you must do what I do which is carry a more powerfully gun or your really vulnerable?

beatledog7

December 4, 2012, 03:11 PM

lol .380, I hope you never have to shoot someone with that crappy caliber...god forbid if the bad guy takes cover behind a metal trash can or something.

On the contrary, God help the assailant who takes 13 rounds from my .380. If he's behind a trashcan, the attack is over, right?

The Lone Haranguer

December 4, 2012, 03:15 PM

Well, I for one have never said the .380 is ineffective. Obviously, if you shoot somebody with it, they aren't going to feel better. :p But you can't tell me it is as effective as a 9mm. Certainly it is more effective than the 9mm left at home.

WYO

December 4, 2012, 03:28 PM

The fact is I just don't need to carry a large heavy recoiling pistol for the purpose of self defense.

The fact is that nobody knows what they need until they need it. When I actually think I may need to use a gun, I grab a rifle. On a pre-need basis, people have to theorize as to their expected encounter and prepare accordingly. Statistically, the chances of a person who is not in a high risk occupation needing any firearm is so slim that the overwhelming majority of people don't bother to carry a gun at all. An example of that would be the people sitting in the movie theater in Aurora, Colorado for the Batman movie.

The Sig P238/P938 line has such excellent sights that both are easy 25 yard guns. The P238 does not, however, fire a round that allows it to achieve its full potential as a defensive system. The size and weight difference is so slight that the choice for me to go with the 9mm was a no brainer. I also have fired a Kel Tec .380 and thought the recoil was a lot for such a puny round. I gave it to my father who falls into the "any gun is a death ray" and the "I won't carry a gun that weighs more than a few ounces" categories. It may save him if the bad guy runs away at the sight of the gun, but his odds aren't good otherwise.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 03:37 PM

On the contrary, God help the assailant who takes 13 rounds from my .380. If he's behind a trashcan, the attack is over, right?
Im sure most saw this video of a old man shooting a robber 3 times with a .380 and later walked himself to the hospital. If the kids were more determined he could of been killed because he didn't stop the attackers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S9UxU6G_P8

As for recoil, the little .380 guns (lcp) recoil just as much as a 9mm.

Fishbed77

December 4, 2012, 03:56 PM

I won't tell people to NEVER carry a .380, but if they do, I will tell them to use modern ammo from the premium manufacturers that push it into 9mm power rangs.

I'm curious as to what .380 ammo equals the power of a 9mm cartridge. I'm pretty sure there are none (though I've been wrong before).

huntsman

December 4, 2012, 03:59 PM

he other reason is that people mention the size...well, there are very few .380s that have a comfortable size grip. Most are for deep concealment. Even less of these .380s are available to the public (why the Glock .380 is illegal here really baffles me). So even though the .380 has the least energy of any of my handguns, it's the only one that hurts my hand when I shoot it.

If your experience with shooting .380acp is a small pocket pistol I could see why it soured you(they're not for everyone) but my BDA and sig P-232 are some of the most comfortable accurate guns I've owned. Yeah I can get some plastic crap 9mm in the same weight and higher cap but my guns are not only for CC.

I never did fit into the taci-cool crowd because I happen to like the all steel .45 and all metal .380

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 04:07 PM

I'm curious as to what .380 ammo equals the power of a 9mm cartridge. I'm pretty sure there are none (though I've been wrong before).
There are none, people with lesser calibers like to tell story's about magic bullets. Same goes for the 9mm crowd.

beatledog7

December 4, 2012, 04:23 PM

3twelves,

If he's behind a trashcan, the attack is over, right?

You quoted this but didn't address it. If the attacker has gone for cover/concealment, the attack has ended; he has surrendered his offensive because he prefers not leaking over getting closer to me. So, to your earlier point:

The whole reason to carry in the first place is to stop the attacker.

I agree, and I have accomplished that. From behind a trash can the attacker is no longer a threat to me. Given that, I'm not shooting at him; therefore, the trashcan's ability to stop or not stop my bullets is irrelevant, as is the chambering of my CCW.

hardheart

December 4, 2012, 04:24 PM

The suggestions to carry modern ammunition from premium manufacturers seems to be a good one. I didn't know it was restricted to the .380.

It's also a good idea not to compromise in a pistol caliber that has poor energy, momentum, and velocity, because pistol rounds suck. It is a good thing that has been mentioned a few times. Thankfully everyone has abandoned the 9mm, .40 S&W, and .45 ACP with their poor velocities and adopted magnum rimmed calibers, 10mm, .460 Rowland, 45 Super, 9x25 Dillon, .50 AEetc. because pistol rounds do suck and it is a better tradeoff to deal with a larger platform and higher recoil for potentially greater effectiveness.

Oops, I think I placed the arbitrary cutoff at the wrong spot.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 04:30 PM

Shooter hiding behind said trash can shooting at you is not a threat to you? When shooting starts people tend to take cover behind stuff. A .380 wont even go through a car door reliably....

MICHAEL T

December 4, 2012, 04:48 PM

Wow!!!! Till I found the internet gun boards. I didn't know a 38spl, 380, 32, wasn't any good for self defense . I guess all the people in this country with one of those calibers for a carry or home defense pistol. Should be told to run to next gun buy back and turn them in as they will never work for Self Defense.Better to have a free turkey that a 38spl 380 or 32. Pity the poor person who just used a 25 auto to defend thenselves. They need to be lock up as mentally incompetent. To have even considered using one of those .

56hawk

December 4, 2012, 05:10 PM

Here is another study of actual shootings: http://www.buckeyefirearms.org/node/7866 Below is the graph that I found the most important. It shows the percentage of shootings where someone was not stopped after being shot. The important jump is in going from 32 to 380.

Try here for .380 ammo that equals 9mm. They have a listing of a lot of the .380 on the market.

I'd also like to mention that Marshall is a cream-puff compared to Fackler, who has to be the rudest, and most arrogant and condescending man that I've ever spoken to.

Who really cares what anyone elses' opinion is? It's just that, OPINION. There is no reason to believe that it holds any more truth than anyone elses opinion.

So, one feels as though a 9mm is the minimum caliber that they will carry. Fine. Are your circumstances the same as everyone else? Of course they aren't. So, WHY should anyone push their opinions as truth?

If power, penetration, capacity, and size of hole is all important, we should be CCWing a Browning M2.

No matter what you carry, or how vociferously you defend your choice, no caliber is 100% effective.

For those who somehow refuse to actually read Marshall & Sanow's books, the percentages were from stops with ONE shot, and in the TORSO. No head shots, no CNS stops. Unless one is dumb enough to only fire once, they don't necessarily apply.

Let's actually try to have a discussion without misquoting facts, and drawing ineffective opinions from those so misquoted facts.

Want to carry a .22 long rifle pistol? Or a .500 S&W derringer? It will ALWAYS beat a good argument with the Bad Guy. Especially when his opinion is that the gun in his hand beats your irrefutable statements.:D:D

weblance

December 4, 2012, 05:19 PM

weblance: Where did I say 9mm subcompacts are the same size as .380 pocket pistols? I didn't, and they aren't.

IMO, the .380's raison d'etre is that you can make the gun smaller for specialized deep concealment, BUG, etc., roles. In the same size gun - and within reason - why handicap yourself with a .380 when you can have 9mm Luger power? Why not take every advantage you can get? In guns Kahr PM9-sized and larger, 9mm Luger does not have excessive recoil.

Your words... right?

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 05:32 PM

Wow!!!! Till I found the internet gun boards. I didn't know a 38spl, 380, 32, wasn't any good for self defense . I guess all the people in this country with one of those calibers for a carry or home defense pistol. Should be told to run to next gun buy back and turn them in as they will never work for Self Defense.Better to have a free turkey that a 38spl 380 or 32. Pity the poor person who just used a 25 auto to defend thenselves. They need to be lock up as mentally incompetent. To have even considered using one of those .

I think a .32 CAN work, but I think that barring FMJ rounds you're going to run the risk of underpenetration (i.e. doesn't reach vitals), and with FMJ rounds you have a significantly smaller wound profile than with an expanded 9. So if you're wanting to rely on a physiological stop instead of psychological, there are definitely reasons why the 9 is better than the .32.

I should also point out that people didn't start thinking of handgun calibers as "weak" because of internet forums. The reason the .45 ACP was popular over a hundred years ago is because the previous cartridge wasn't considered to be effective enough. The FBI tests (which resulted in the .40 S&W being created and the advancement in 9mm ammunition today) were based on failure to stop in the field, not because an internet commando said "you use 9mm lolz". So don't blame this on the internet or forums.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 05:37 PM

Wow!!!! Till I found the internet gun boards. I didn't know a 38spl, 380, 32, wasn't any good for self defense . I guess all the people in this country with one of those calibers for a carry or home defense pistol. Should be told to run to next gun buy back and turn them in as they will never work for Self Defense.Better to have a free turkey that a 38spl 380 or 32. Pity the poor person who just used a 25 auto to defend thenselves. They need to be lock up as mentally incompetent. To have even considered using one of those .
Yah, and I could also go bear hunting with a .22lr but I won't because I want to come home in one piece.

I like how when the .380 failed to expand, it penetrated just as deep as the 9mm that did expand. And on every other one, the 9mm expanded just as much, if not more.

very good comparison considering it's the same brand and line of ammo.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 06:08 PM

I like how when the .380 failed to expand, it penetrated just as deep as the 9mm that did expand. And on every other one, the 9mm expanded just as much, if not more.

very good comparison considering it's the same brand and line of ammo.
That's not even getting into the +p, +p+ offerings to make it fair.

beatledog7

December 4, 2012, 06:11 PM

3twelves,

If we're talking about an active shooter then it's a gunfight, and that sort of thing is exceedingly rare. Why would this guy be shooting at me unprovoked?

You're presenting a lot of data that we already know, so I'm at a loss to understand your purpose. I would never argue that a .380 has as much ballistic power as a 9mm. I would will argue that in the right hands with properly loaded FMJs it is an adequate SD round.

I'm never surprised that whenever these caliber wars blaze up, nobody states that he's willing to take a bullet or three or ten fired from a cartridge he poo-poos as totally inadequate to prove his point.

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 06:16 PM

I'm never surprised that whenever these caliber wars blaze up, nobody states that he's willing to take a bullet or three or ten fired from a cartridge he poo-poos as totally inadequate to prove his point.

Just because I won't stand in front of any caliber, doesn't mean I would want to stand behind it in a SD situation, either. The big reason I think the .38/.380 are sort of the "threshold" is because when you compare a 9mm to a .45, you're generally comparing a 0.65" hole to a 0.77" hole (or something similar). With .380 vs. 9, you're comparing a 0.35" hole to 0.65" hole. That's a much bigger gap.

I'm not denying that the .380 can stop an attacker, or that many people will move out of the way regardless of whether I have a .380 or a 9. However, I would much rather have a 9 at my fingertips to stop the threat.

Redlg155

December 4, 2012, 06:21 PM

My 95 percent carry gun is a Sig P238 in .380.

I know I can conceal the weapon no matter what I wear. I am aware of my surroundings at all times and if need be, I would rather safely disengage from a conflict than actively engage in one. If...and only if I have to, I have 7 rounds at my disposal to stop the threat, or at the very least, give me time to retreat to a safer position. And yes, the smart man lives to fight another day.

Do I feel handicapped? Not in the least. There are times that I do feel the want- not necessarily need, to carry a larger pistol, but then I always come back to the Sig .380. It seems that I prefer comfort in my older age.

At home it is a different story. I choose my Mossy 930 or any one of the more effective offerings at my disposal.

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 06:46 PM

Redlg, you could get a Sig P938, almost the exact same size, and have 9mm instead.

I know I can conceal the weapon no matter what I wear. I am aware of my surroundings at all times and if need be, I would rather safely disengage from a conflict than actively engage in one. If...and only if I have to, I have 7 rounds at my disposal to stop the threat, or at the very least, give me time to retreat to a safer position. And yes, the smart man lives to fight another day.

What gun you choose has nothing to do with how you escape from conflict, but everything to do with what happens if you fail to escape from conflict. It's just like capacity or anything like that. "Well I have a 0.2% chance of being attacked on Main Street and a 0.1% chance of being attacked on Adam Street, so I need more firepower on Main Street". Well, in both cases, you might be attacked by the same people. So why do you need more firepower if attacked on Main Street?

Fishbed77

December 4, 2012, 06:52 PM

There are none, people with lesser calibers like to tell story's about magic bullets. Same goes for the 9mm crowd.

Except there are some 9mm loadings that can match some .40S&W loadings (obviously you are getting into +P or +P+ versus standard).

Redlg155

December 4, 2012, 07:00 PM

. "Well I have a 0.2% chance of being attacked on Main Street and a 0.1% chance of being attacked on Adam Street, so I need more firepower on Main Street". Well, in both cases, you might be attacked by the same people. So why do you need more firepower if attacked on Main Street? ______

Using that rationale means that I should just carry a Mossburg 930 12for ga semi auto IWB. eh?

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 07:14 PM

The amount of firepower you need IF attacked has nothing to do with the chance of being attacked. Of course there is always a compromise, especially in pistols, but if your rationale for using a weaker caliber is "I might not get attacked, so I don't need the firepower of the bigger one", then you are polluting the decision of which weapon to carry by adding in factors that don't affect the encounter.

Like I said, if you can carry a 238, you can carry a 938. The size difference between the two is miniscule, meaning you can carry a 938 just as easily, and have a much better performing cartridge.

kokapelli

December 4, 2012, 07:18 PM

The amount of firepower you need IF attacked has nothing to do with the chance of being attacked. Of course there is always a compromise, especially in pistols, but if your rationale for using a weaker caliber is "I might not get attacked, so I don't need the firepower of the bigger one", then you are polluting the decision of which weapon to carry by adding in factors that don't affect the encounter.

Like I said, if you can carry a 238, you can carry a 938. The size difference between the two is miniscule, meaning you can carry a 938 just as easily, and have a much better performing cartridge.
Well, not exactly because the 938 has significantly more felt recoil than the 238.

3twelves

December 4, 2012, 07:21 PM

Well, not exactly because the 938 has significantly more felt recoil than the 238.
Are you going to notice a little more recoil in a SD scenario? NO
You might not even notice you have been shot in a SD scenario.

Skribs

December 4, 2012, 07:32 PM

I haven't even noticed much difference in recoil between the two. The 938 beats up my hand a lot less than my LCP, because it fits better and has a bit more heft to it. That said, after some rough analysis on hit percents and number of assailants on this forum, I won't carry anything with less than 10 rounds in the magazine.

Redlg155

December 4, 2012, 09:10 PM

The 938 magazine capacity is 6, 7 with the extended base. So you don't advocate carrying the 938 now?

Rexster

December 4, 2012, 09:41 PM

In a toe-to-toe frontal shooting, with an unarmored opponent, and no intervening obstacles to provide cover, a .380 ACP might be effective enough, but there are plenty of scenarios where I may want more penetration through any number of things.

I also believe that the more powerful cartridges cycle auto-loading mechanisms more reliably.

This does not mean that I hate the .380, and other cartridges less powerful than typical service/duty cartridges. Indeed, as my formerly stronger hand and wrist are afflicted with chronic conditions, I am considering a number of pistols chambering lower-powered cartridges; my list includes several of the larger-than-pocket-sized .380 pistols, and even .32 ACP is a consideration.

Aaron1100us

December 4, 2012, 09:48 PM

My Wife carries a Bersa Thunder .380 because that is the biggest caliber that she is comfortable with. I see nothing wrong with the .380 and well placed shots. As said before, all pistol calibers suck, even the 357 SIG and .40 S&W that I carry.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2

lobo9er

December 4, 2012, 09:56 PM

380's are a size situation. not power situation. Impossible for me to carry anything else on a regular basis. Unless open carry becomes legal sometime soon...., a 380 in the pocket is better than what ever is in the safe at home...., or how ever that goes

What concerns me most about those Winchester .380 JHPs is that none of them made it more than 8 inches, except for the one that failed to expand after wallboard.

The "service calibers" (9mm-.45) don't seem to have that problem.

gazpacho

December 4, 2012, 10:12 PM

I carry a 380 to make other guys feel good about their manhood.

76shuvlinoff

December 4, 2012, 10:43 PM

I have options to carry .45, .40, 9mm .357 and .380. I grab the little LCP more often than suiting up for the bigger sidearms. I guess that makes me irresponsible or lazy.

I've read above about the LCP having a sharp recoil. I don't find that as the case for me with a finger extension on the mag. At 7 paces I can point and empty the thing into a paper plate rather quickly. As far as I'm concerned that's good for a no sight belly gun.

WvHiker

December 4, 2012, 11:16 PM

I had a KelTec .380 that I traded off for a bunch or reloading equipment. I didn't carry it often and to me it had a lot more recoil than my Glock 19.

I miss my .380 and plan to buy an LCP next month. I do prefer 9mm and the larger, higher capacity 9mm but still see a place for the pocket gun. I'm not too worried about carrying it either, especially in the dead of summer when all anyone wears is a tshirt.

Is this foolish? Maybe it is. I made it over twenty years with no gun at all and if I want to carry a .380 fishing I'm going to.

Carry whatever you want, I'll carry whatever I want, and the next guy can carry whatever he wants. I don't understand why everyone gets so worked up about what other people carry.

RevolvingGarbage

December 4, 2012, 11:24 PM

Im sure most saw this video of a old man shooting a robber 3 times with a .380 and later walked himself to the hospital. If the kids were more determined he could of been killed because he didn't stop the attackers.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7S9UxU6G_P8

As for recoil, the little .380 guns (lcp) recoil just as much as a 9mm.

Are you really presenting this video as an argument against .380 as a carry round?

"If the kids were more determined..." So they didnt want it bad enough, and thats why the guy didnt simply turn into the gunfire as any real thug worth his salt would have done? Please.

Ok sure, the guy wasnt instantly vaporized by the little slug, but you can see it made all the bad guys clear out of the scene in a hurry.

Gary A

December 4, 2012, 11:45 PM

Considering the graph posted by 56Hawk, without debating it's accuracy or credibility, it is interesting that it appears that the .380 failed to incapacitate approximately 16% of the time and the 9mm failed to incapacitate approximately 13 to 14% of the time. Or, conversely, the .380 successfully incapacitated 84% of the time and the 9mm incapacitated approximately 86 to 87% of the time.

Seriously folks, if this chart is remotely accurate, are these the differences people are getting their shorts in a wad about?

heeler

December 4, 2012, 11:54 PM

I started concealed carry right at three years ago and started with a Diamondback 380 that finally(two pistols total no less) to be unreliable to use for such work.
Then I bought a very reliable LCP.
Started carrying it in a leather pocket holster.
Very comfortable and weighs fully loaded a mere 12 ounces.
Recoil was not that bad as some said it was.
I am pretty accurate with mine too.
Then I spent a lot of money on a PM9 with nite sights.
Great pistol.
Very accurate and easier to shoot than my LCP.
Weighs 20 onces fully loaded.
However,it does not pocket carry anywhere as easily or slimly as my LCP.
I cannot stand the feel of carrying a pistol IWB method so that's out.
So I find myself going with the LCP far more than the PM9.
But I will admit,and I am sure several of you will seize upon this statement and take me to task,but last week after shooting both the LCP and PM9 I stopped at the drug store to pick something up when suddenly a car with three guys in it came ripping at high speed across the parking lot with a large number of police cars giving chase.
It made me think and the thought was in a violent assault I would probably be more confident using my PM9 than my LCP.
Especially since I had just left the range and had shot the PM9,using Federal HST 147 grain HP's really well.
But today I stopped at the mall and bought a couple of Christmas gifts and felt quite happy to have the ultra slim and reliable LCP in my right hand front pocket.
As they say,beats a sharp stick or throwing rocks.

Aaron1100us

December 5, 2012, 04:18 AM

Does anyone who thinks a .380 isn't good enough willing to be shot by one? I didn't think so:) All pistol calibers suck. I heard about a guy who was shot by police 18 times with a .40S&W before the guy stopped shooting. Shot placement, not caliber when it comes to hand guns. Not talking large caliber hunting relolvers.

Sent from my PB99400 using Tapatalk 2

dirtengineer

December 5, 2012, 04:44 AM

Are you really presenting this video as an argument against .380 as a carry round?

"If the kids were more determined..." So they didnt want it bad enough, and thats why the guy didnt simply turn into the gunfire as any real thug worth his salt would have done? Please.

Ok sure, the guy wasnt instantly vaporized by the little slug, but you can see it made all the bad guys clear out of the scene in a hurry.
I think the important thing to notice, and the reason why I usually carry my LCP, is that it is easy to conceal and I therefore I won't leave it at home. The guy in that video in Florida was wearing shorts and a short sleeved shirt. The small .380 pistols available make it fairly easy to conceal with even minimal summer clothing and the light weight won't make your shorts fall down.

The .380 is probably less effective all things being equal, but it is infinitely more effective that the full sized pistol you left at home or in your car.

AFDavis11

December 5, 2012, 04:53 AM

Gosh, I hate these threads. Okay, so based on the actual stats posited by 56hawk, if you do not carry a .357 magnum you are a complete raving lunatic of an imbecilic moronic idiot. So that should damper the argument a bit. The .45 and 9 mm simply lack effective stopping power in comparison.

Now in reality we all simply carry guns, and those guns have bullets.

We can't adjust the bullet we carry, dialing up to .357 when we need it. Those of you that carry .45 and 9mm aren't little girls with guns. You might have issues with being strong enough to carry real manly stopping power, but I think, besides being a little ignorant, you guys are just fine.

Then of course there are the guys that are truly men, and bring assault rifles to the fight. Naturally, someone somewhere thinks 12 gauge is the only option.

So, my question to everyone is why don't they carry a more effective round? Yes, that includes you guys carrying the highly less capable .45 app and especially you weaker guys that only carry a 9mm.

What is your excuse? Why are you failing to represent the "stopping power" mantra that you advocate? You guys advocate Sanow? He does not advocate the bullet that you are carrying! Please explain your failure to follow the advice that you are advocating, or explain why you are not capable of reading the entire report, getting it accurately, and ONLY carrying a .357 magnum!

There are some valid reasons.

I choose to carry a .380 because it's the bullet that fits the best in my gun! I tried .45 but they don't fit.

Can't we figure out a way to recommend carrying the most firepower or bullet without getting so hung up on it?

lobo9er

December 5, 2012, 08:52 AM

the "service calibers" (9mm-.45) don't seem to have that problem.

Thats because they are more "powerful" no one will argue that point. 8 inches after heavy clothing is not bad out of a pocket gun. To each his own.

Gary A

December 5, 2012, 10:39 AM

WvHiker, who said Carry whatever you want, I'll carry whatever I want, and the next guy can carry whatever he wants. I don't understand why everyone gets so worked up about what other people carry. has a true libertarian approach to the question. Bravo!

mavracer

December 5, 2012, 10:40 AM

Does anyone who thinks a .380 isn't good enough willing to be shot by one?
Does anyone here want to get splashed in the face with warm cat urine?

Gary A

December 5, 2012, 10:48 AM

I would not be terribly surprised if someone, somewhere has successfully defended against an attacker by just that method, or something similar and equally obnoxious. (Although I suspect the overall OSS rating would be pretty low for warm cat urine.)

beatledog7

December 5, 2012, 11:29 AM

Shot shells loaded with rock salt served very well until we learned from movies and the Internet that a .45ACP round will blast as assailant through three walls and into the street.

JR47

December 5, 2012, 11:41 AM

According to the FBI, non-LEO shooters are most likely to be attacked at less than seven feet, under low-light conditions, and by an unarmored assailant, in a frontal attack.

What is all of this about heavy clothing? Many parts of the United States have average temperatures well above freezing throughout the winter. Here, in Northern Georgia, the average winter temp is 47 degrees. Heavy clothing isn't in abundance.

If one is in such a cold climate, they will have ample opportunity to carry a more powerful caliber. The same clothing that makes it necessary to carry heavy also provides ample places to carry it in.

This is part of the problem with these threads. All that "wisdom" forgets that not everyone faces the same living conditions, laws, and personal abilities. Ever wonder why the actual shooting schools aren't caliber fixated? Perhaps because not everyone, and certainly not everywhere, needs the same capabilities.

As for the " get the XXX in 9mm, it's the same size" is a bogus statement. The bigger gun will be slightly larger, and weigh, when loaded, slightly more. Then again, if you think that a Kahr in 9x19 is better then a Kahr .380, then why not just jump up to the P45? That gives you a still larger bullet, only loses one round, and weighs 3.3 oz more. Or the P40?

Skribs

December 5, 2012, 12:07 PM

AFDavis, barring things like mindset and placement (which are pretty much universal) penetration > expanded caliber. So when I look at the difference between .380 and 9 in a gun that I'd spend more than 20 rounds at the range at a time, they're about the same size and capacity, and I feel them kick about the same, but in order to get the same penetration in a .380 you have to get a failure to expand (or FMJs), which results in a wound channel of significantly smaller diameter.

9mm, .357 magnum, or .45 ACP designed for SD will all penetrate to about the same depth and all expand to ~0.1" of each other. That's why I carry a 9 instead of some of these others.

Now, when you get into LCP range, sure you're not likely to find a 9 that size. I also don't believe that you need an LCP for pocket carry (I've pocket carried a M&P compact without trouble). Some people in this thread seem to think that your options are either a pocket .380 or a Glock 17. There are small 9mm pistols, too.

Lobo9er, 8 inches, regardless of where it comes from, might fail to hit vitals if shooting the target at an odd angle.

Shot shells loaded with rock salt served very well until we learned from movies and the Internet that a .45ACP round will blast as assailant through three walls and into the street.

Can you explain to me how the FBI stats requiring 12" penetration or the old army tests where they chose the .45 ACP for the requirements in the 1911 have anything to do with movies?

JR47, you're from Georgia, I'm from Washington state. Let me tell you - heavy clothing can be a big deal for 10 months of the year.

beatledog7

December 5, 2012, 12:11 PM

My rock salt and 45s comment was meant to call out the futility of the argument, nothing more.

Redlg155

December 5, 2012, 12:18 PM

Heavy clothing a factor?...I do remember an instance where I was confronted by thee Eskimos wearing Kevlars...

Skribs

December 5, 2012, 12:21 PM

My rock salt and 45s comment was meant to call out the futility of the argument, nothing more.

Well if the Army and the FBI both consider caliber selection to be an important consideration, then shouldn't we - who are also using our guns to stop threats if the situation arises - give the same level of consideration?

Redlg155

December 5, 2012, 12:54 PM

Unfortunately the caliber selection by our armed forces cannot be relied upon as their choices are dictated by politics and logistics. Why leave the more effective. 45 ACP in FMJ and go to the 9mm FMJ?

56hawk

December 5, 2012, 01:10 PM

As for the " get the XXX in 9mm, it's the same size" is a bogus statement. The bigger gun will be slightly larger, and weigh, when loaded, slightly more.

Depends on which two guns you are talking about. If you check out this link you can find 9mm guns that are smaller than 380s. http://www.mouseguns.com/PocketAutoComparison.pdf

By the way, I own five 380s and they are all bigger and heavier than my 9mm Kel-Tec P11

Skribs

December 5, 2012, 01:17 PM

Unfortunately the caliber selection by our armed forces cannot be relied upon as their choices are dictated by politics and logistics. Why leave the more effective. 45 ACP in FMJ and go to the 9mm FMJ?

I didn't say we should go with what they choose, especially because their applications may be a bit different than ours. I did say that we should look at why they look at caliber selection (ability to stop a target, among other factors) and realize that it is an important consideration.

481

December 5, 2012, 01:24 PM

To each his own.

That was my point and why I said "What concerns me most..." Never said that anyone else was constrained by that concern.

mavracer

December 5, 2012, 01:33 PM

If you check out this link you can find 9mm guns that are smaller than 380s.
I don't see any 9mms smaller than the Seecamp and none are lighter than the LCR or Keltec.
By the way, I own five 380s and they are all bigger and heavier than my 9mm Kel-Tec P11
And they're probably easier to shoot accuratly faster.

56hawk

December 5, 2012, 02:02 PM

I don't see any 9mms smaller than the Seecamp and none are lighter than the LCR or Keltec.

Is your carry gun a Seecamp? If so I assume you decided that it was enough smaller and lighter than a 9mm to be worth the decrease in power. My point was that not all 380s are smaller and lighter than some of the small 9mms. So as the original question asked, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest someone looks at pocket size 9mms when they ask about carrying a 380.

Oh, and I'm sure I could shoot some of my 380s faster than the Kel Tec. But that's just because the 380s are all single action and the Kel Tec is DAO.

fastbolt

December 5, 2012, 02:37 PM

Well, it's certainly not uncommon to see some folks get all worked up over what other people may choose to lawfully carry for a dedicated defensive weapon. :eek:

While I've not made it my business to denigrate what other LE choose to carry for off-duty weapons (as long as it's within policy), or what non-LE folks choose to use for lawful CCW application, I've had my own thoughts on the matter over the years.

Until recently, the last .380 I'd briefly owned and carried was about 25 years ago, and that was a Beretta M84. Large for the caliber, thick (dbl stack mag) ... and nowadays I have 9's about as small, or smaller.

A while back a good friend of mine (another instructor) sheepishly admitted that he'd bought a LCP and had been using and carrying it. He loaned it to me, and I was pleasantly surprised by how well it could be slipped into some of the tighter jeans pockets (pocket holstered) in which I couldn't slip one of my J's.

Realizing the inherent capabilities of the .380 cartridge, as well as its practical & potential limitations, I decided the LCP could be used to fill a role. I ordered one of my own.

I test-fired mine using 3 types of hollowpoints. I tried a 25-rd box of the Remington 102gr BJHP (Golden Sabre), a 50-rd box of Speer 90gr GDHP and half of a 50-rd box of the Winchester 95gr RA380T (T-Series).

Although the rudimentary front sight is small and hard to see, especially in reduced light conditions, the little LCP was surprisingly (amazingly) accurate when using aimed fire. As long as I could see the sights, it produced very tight cloverleaf groups at 5-7 yards, and respectable groupings out to twice as far. Good enough for my intended purpose. Indexed groups were also respectable at reasonably close distances.

Due to availability, I'll probably use either the Speer or Winchester loads.

While I'd prefer to carry one of my compact/subcompact pistols, or one of my handful of J's, there are many times when I either don't feel like belting on a larger weapon, or I'm not able to pocket-holster carry one of my larger pistols or revolvers. The LCP will fill that role, and I'll work to maintain my skillset with it and continue to qualify with it.

Never thought I'd own another .380, though.

Never say never. ;)

Granted, it's not what I'd want as a primary weapon if I were still being dispatched to continual calls-for-service, or managing a caseload where I was continually putting myself into stressful situations involving persons who might be armed, and who might be involved in criminal activities.

I'm retired, though, and I have much more control over where my daily interests and activities take me.

Doesn't mean I won't be carrying one of my larger J's upon occasion, or one of my assorted 9's, .40's or .45's, though. Just depends.

It's just that now I have an option to still be able to carry a weapon in circumstances where I otherwise might have decided not to carry one.

mavracer

December 5, 2012, 03:12 PM

Is your carry gun a Seecamp? If so I assume you decided that it was enough smaller and lighter than a 9mm to be worth the decrease in power. My point was that not all 380s are smaller and lighter than some of the small 9mms. So as the original question asked, I think it's perfectly reasonable to suggest someone looks at pocket size 9mms when they ask about carrying a 380.
Not any more, sold it when i realized I hardly ever carried it. There's a difference between suggesting a pocket 9mm and berating someones choice too.

Oh, and I'm sure I could shoot some of my 380s faster than the Kel Tec. But that's just because the 380s are all single action and the Kel Tec is DAO.
so you are carrying a gun which you haven't mastered trigger control and giving up speed and accuracy in hopes that the slight increase in power will make up for it.:o

Skribs

December 5, 2012, 03:48 PM

I think he was referring to the inherent speed increase in having a lighter/shorter trigger, rather than his mastery of said trigger. I also think (especially for pocket carry) that longer trigger is safer.

mavracer

December 5, 2012, 03:55 PM

I think he was referring to the inherent speed increase in having a lighter/shorter trigger, rather than his mastery of said trigger.
properly run a DAO won't slow you down (google Miculek) , so if he's going to blame the trigger and not recoil control for his percieved lack of speed and accuracy he's admitting he really hasn't mastered the trigger.
also I said and so it really doesn't what he blames the lack of speed and accuracy on.

56hawk

December 5, 2012, 04:08 PM

properly run a DAO won't slow you down (google Miculek) , so if he's going to blame the trigger and not recoil control for his percieved lack of speed and accuracy he's admitting he really hasn't mastered the trigger.

Hmmm. Guess some guns are impossible to master then since I can shoot faster than Jerry Miculek. Of course I never really considered concealed carrying a STI.

DurangoKid

December 5, 2012, 04:23 PM

I own a safe full of handguns. My carry choice is a Colt Mustang Plus II .380.:)

TimboKhan

December 5, 2012, 04:32 PM

Lets tone it down, friends. This is getting snarky for no good reason.

Sent from my DROID RAZR using Tapatalk 2

mavracer

December 5, 2012, 05:56 PM

Hmmm. Guess some guns are impossible to master then since I can shoot faster than Jerry Miculek. Of course I never really considered concealed carrying a STI.
Claiming your comstock score is higher when shooting a open gun against a revolver is extremely disingenuous. I mean really if all that matters for you is a SA trigger why do you need a compensator to help with recoil mitigation.

It's just that nowadays I no longer have to dress around a medium or full-size plainclothes or off-duty weapon, unless I feel like doing so.

One of the reasons I got back into J-frames was so I could remain armed in environments presenting lesser overt & immediate threats. The J's allowed me to remain armed with a weapon I could effectively use. I pocket-carried one or another of them while traveling to attend meetings, as well as seminars & conferences as both attendee and trainer. I could dress according to my planned activities or simple preferences without having to take a belt gun into consideration.

I have a fair selection of subcompact, compact & full-size pistols, and a similar range of revolvers, from which to choose. I could carry a different handgun (with which I've trained & qualified) everyday, and not carry the same one twice in more than a month.

So, if I feel like relaxing at the cigar club with the guys, or strolling along one of the Coastal towns where I live, wearing only shorts and a thin T-shirt, or traveling out-of-state for personal or family enjoyment, etc, etc ... I can remain armed (at my discretion) even more easily than when carrying a J-frame.

I'd like to point out that for the most part, none of this trigger discussion has anything to do with .380 vs 9 or bigger. Personally, if you take two similar pistols, the first of which was designed for .380 ACP and the second slightly scaled up for 9mm, you won't notice much difference. The LC9 is a different animal from LCP, but if you compare the Sig 238 and Sig 938, you'll notice that the size is real close and they don't seem to feel that different when shooting, but the 938 hits a lot harder; either wider or deeper depending on what you load into the .380.

56hawk

December 5, 2012, 06:29 PM

so you are carrying a gun which you haven't mastered trigger control and giving up speed and accuracy in hopes that the slight increase in power will make up for it.:o

properly run a DAO won't slow you down (google Miculek) , so if he's going to blame the trigger and not recoil control for his percieved lack of speed and accuracy he's admitting he really hasn't mastered the trigger.
also I said and so it really doesn't what he blames the lack of speed and accuracy on.

Claiming your comstock score is higher when shooting a open gun against a revolver is extremely disingenuous. I mean really if all that matters for you is a SA trigger why do you need a compensator to help with recoil mitigation.

Okay... I never said open gun. And considering this message from our moderator I'm going to leave it at that.

Lets tone it down, friends. This is getting snarky for no good reason.

Kahr33556

December 5, 2012, 06:38 PM

well I carry a 380 more than my 9 because of size but that being said your better of with a 380 than nothing

Redlg155

December 5, 2012, 06:38 PM

In the end it all boils down to personal preference.

Fit and feel is subjective to the individual user. Sometimes 1/16" of an inch can make the difference between comfortably concealed and uncomfortable "printing". A Sig P238 is ok in my pocket, move up to PM9 and things are a "no-go". What really matters is that you are armed and trained in the effective use of your chosen weapon.

Skribs

December 5, 2012, 07:13 PM

Redlg, how does the 938 compare to the 238 for you? You're comparing two different guns. It would be like saying "The G21 is harder to conceal than a G19, so therefore .45 is a lot harder to conceal than 9."

RBid

December 5, 2012, 08:01 PM

There are sacrifices to be made with the selection of any round. .380 is more controllable than 9mm is more controllable than .45, .45 makes a bigger hole than .40 makes a bigger hole than 9mm, etc. The decision of which sacrifices to make is a deeply personal one.

If somebody knows and accepts the compromises that come with carrying or using .380, I respect their right to do so. To pretend that these compromises don't exist-- with any round, would just be silly.

I choose to carry 9mm, in a compact (NOT subcompact) platform, with which I can quickly and accurately put shots on target, and which I can control reasonably with one hand. I have come to the conclusion that I can easily and comfortably conceal and carry up to the size of a Glock 19, so within that size range, I prefer to stay closer to the large end. I gain nothing, and lose a lot, by going smaller.

My worry is that people will make unnecessary compromises, and find themselves in situations in which they need to use their CCW. When I say'unnecessary', that is not a veiled slight at the .380. It's a reference to prioritizing 'small' to the point where the ability to quickly and accurately put shots on target becomes retarded by the package. An example: carrying an LCP, without experimenting with platforms or carry methods that may enable the user to carry a more capable firearm. The LCP is a GREAT choice, if and only if it is the most gun you can carry. Move-draw-shoot with an LCP (or similar) is not as easy as it is with larger platforms.

lobo9er

December 5, 2012, 09:06 PM

380 threads never go any where.
Well if the Army and the FBI both consider caliber selection to be an important consideration, then shouldn't we - who are also using our guns to stop threats if the situation arises - give the same level of consideration
I agree but ARMY and FBI dont have to worry about concealment like the rest of us.

The rest of us lucky enough to get carry permits I might add unfortunately.

rdefabri

December 5, 2012, 10:53 PM

No dog in this hunt, but IIRC, a .380 is the same diameter as a 9mm, but slightly shorter in length (2mm?). I may be wrong, but the diameter has more to do with the exit wound than the length, no?

Many of my friends in law enforcement do not like the 9mm caliber - they say the rounds are too hot and will pass through perps and walls. For home defense, they tell me it's not a good choice since risk of collateral damage is high.

Looking at the graphs comparing the .380 to the 9mm indicates this to be directionally correct - the expansion on both is similar, but the 9mm has almost double the penetration.

Again, no dog in this hunt, but based on the anecdotal info from my friends, and the data on the comparison, the .380 would seem to be effective - especially for home defense. In a situation where it's close range, I can't imagine the efficacy is that much different (as noted by another poster that said the .380 was effective 84% of the time, the 9mm 85-86% of the time). FWIW

Madcap_Magician

December 5, 2012, 11:49 PM

I don't think the .380 ACP is INEFFECTIVE, just that it's LESS EFFECTIVE than most of the other common self-defense cartridges, most of which are made in guns just as small as a .380 if you want the concealment, or only slightly larger.

Since the tiny .380s have some sharp recoil and muzzle jump, I think I'd rather just have the 9mm.

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 12:23 AM

Comparing 9 to .40 to .45 you also have a difference of capacity. .380 to 9 in a similar platform should be the same.

Concealing a 9 that is similar to a .380 isn't any harder. I've used the Sig example before, but a DB380 and DB9 are also pretty close in size.

Propforce

December 6, 2012, 12:54 AM

Why not just go to the .40S&W, if the argument for 9mm is that it is not much bigger than .380? Most .40S&W are the same size as 9mm, yet it is more powerful than the 9.

When compare the 9mm with larger calibers, I hear arguments like shot placement is what counts, it has enough power against humans, BG will be just as dead, dead is dead, BG can not tell the difference if you do your part, etc.

Sounds like the same argument should be equally valid for the .380ACP to me.

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 08:57 AM

Concealing a 9 that is similar to a .380 isn't any harder. I've used the Sig example before, but a DB380 and DB9 are also pretty close in size.
Of course if you make them the same size and weight the 9mm has about 50% more recoil to mitigate and you just can't get around that.

CommanderCrusty

December 6, 2012, 10:50 AM

Nobody in their right mind wants to be shot--not with a .22, not with a .380 and not with a .44 magnum.

No criminal really believes they will ever be shot, so no matter what you shoot them with, you'll probably have to shoot them twice: Once to show you mean it; Once more to actually stop their attack.

The only time you need a real Man Stopper is when someone in particular really REALLY wants to kill YOU! Those people must be physically stopped, not stopped by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom. If you come up against one of THEM? Well, then what you really need is a rifle or shotgun.

IMHO you should carry whatever you feel comfortable carrying. If you try something too big, don't stop carrying a weapon, just switch to something a bit smaller.

beatledog7

December 6, 2012, 11:26 AM

^^This (Post 116) is a reality assessment if I've ever seen one.

People like to keep their blood on the inside, and all bullets make blood go outside. Presenting a gun stops all but the truly determined (the drugged fall into the determined category), and for them the answer is either a CNS hit or many holes. The cartridge/firearm that best assures the user of accuracy and has sufficient capacity to achieve many holes in the attacker is therefore the best cartridge for that user.

There's nothing shameful about successfully stopping an attacker with a .380, nor is there anything brag-worthy about stopping an attacker with a .44 Magnum. The decision to shoot an attacker when no other option remained is enough to prove the shooter is a real man or real woman.

David E

December 6, 2012, 11:50 AM

Nobody in their right mind wants to be shot--not with a .22, not with a .380 and not with a .44 magnum.

Except we cannot know if they are in their "right mind" when they threaten our lives.

No criminal really believes they will ever be shot, so no matter what you shoot them with, you'll probably have to shoot them twice: Once to show you mean it; Once more to actually stop their attack.

This made me chuckle until unrealized you were serious. If I need to shoot someone, it's not to show I "mean it," but to defend my life against an immediate deadly threat. This means my first and every shot I fire will be with the goal of stopping the badguy from doing/completing the act I'm shooting him for.

The only time you need a real Man Stopper is when someone in particular really REALLY wants to kill YOU! Those people must be physically stopped, not stopped by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom.

Which is any person trying to kill me!

If you come up against one of THEM? Well, then what you really need is a rifle or shotgun.

Except I can't carry a shotgun with me all the time.

IMHO you should carry whatever you feel comfortable carrying.

Any gun with you is better than any gun not, but that does not mean all guns or calibers are equally effective. The smaller you go in caliber, the more precise your shots need to be. Center mass is a good area to hit with a 9mm/.40/.45, while a .380/.32/.25 would be more effective in the face and neck area.

If you try something too big, don't stop carrying a weapon, just switch to something a bit smaller.

Agreed.

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 12:06 PM

Why not just go to the .40S&W, if the argument for 9mm is that it is not much bigger than .380? Most .40S&W are the same size as 9mm, yet it is more powerful than the 9.

The difference here is that the 9 and .40 are very similiar in terminal ballistics. In order to get similar penetration out of a .380 you have to go FMJ, which means a much bigger reduction in PWC size from 9 to .380 (probably 0.3") than from .40 to 9 (somewhere in the 0.06-0.07" range). You also have other disadvantages. The 9 only gives up a small bit of frame size and some recoil to the .380. In terms of cost/benefit for all these factors, going from .380 to 9 gives you a much bigger jump than going 9 to .40.

Good assessment, David. That basically is what I was going to say, but better written.

Godsgunman

December 6, 2012, 01:00 PM

Here's my reasoning for not being a .380 fan. Plain and simple I find the .380 round to be horribly overpriced for what I get. I can get better everything with 9mm luger for a cheaper price. Also I don't need a tiny no sight pocket gun with unpleasant recoil and very little capacity when I have a smallish, comfortable, easy to carry, extremely accurate, double stack 9mm firearm I carry each and everday. I did once own a S&W Bodyguard .380 when I also fell into the "pocket craze". I gave it a try but just not for me. Its really the price and lack of performance for that price that turns me off.

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 01:53 PM

Which is any person trying to kill me!
How can you possibly know that every person that's going to try to kill you is so determined that they won't stop by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom?

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 01:54 PM

Mavracer I think he meant every person trying to kill him needs to be stopped.

Esoxchaser

December 6, 2012, 02:27 PM

My wife can rapid fire 95 out of a hundred rounds out of her P238 into an 8" target at 12 yards. Same percentage into a 6" target at 7 yards. Her percentage of hits drops off dramatically with our EMP 9mm or P938. So guess what we figure she is best off carrying?

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 03:12 PM

Mavracer I think he meant every person trying to kill him needs to be stopped.
I would think that would have went without saying. This is the quote he responded to subject in bold.
The only time you need a real Man Stopper is when someone in particular really REALLY wants to kill YOU! Those people must be physically stopped, not stopped by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom.

JR47

December 6, 2012, 03:26 PM

I love it when the fact that something like a quarter inch difference in expanded diameter is considered important. Like that's going to be the difference between your winning or losing. Please.

No bullet in an easily concealed handgun is going to make a huge difference in expansion over their base diameter.

Those 9mm figures are normally from a 4", or greater, barrel. From a 3", or less, barrel, they drop, often dramatically.

It's like saying that, because you could buy a Barracuda in 1969 with a Hemi, that all Barracudas were that fast.

I've seen people absorb a chest-full of 9x19 +P+ rounds, and still have to be restrained, That person lived to stand trial. I also saw a man 6' 2" and 240 pounds killed by a single .22 long rifle bullet from a little RG14 revolver. He was shot in the back as he turned to grab his baseball bat, by his petite wife.

Again, each person has a set of circumstances that they live with. Some will be physically challenged, others live where laws vary all over the map. YOU have to determine what is "enough", not somebody who has an entirely different set of circumstances.

Nobody, no matter how smart they think they are, can be prepared for every emergency requiring a gun. You prepare for what your life-style requires.

Teachu2

December 6, 2012, 03:47 PM

The underlying question is "How much power do I need in my SD handgun?".

The answer is "Enough".

The Kicker: There is no penalty for having more than needed. The penalties for having less than needed can be harsh, up to and including death.

Each of us gets to make that decision, all the time.

Mindset-Skillset-Toolset: Mindset requires confidence in your weapon and ammunition choice (and a host of other things!); Skillset requires that you can operate that weapon at a satisfactory level; Toolset will be determined by Mindset and Skillset. Carry the most powerful, highest capacity weapon you can that satisfies Mindset and Skillset. If that's a .380, fine with me. My mindset won't allow it for myself, but that's my decision.

beatledog7

December 6, 2012, 04:20 PM

The underlying question is, "How much power do I need in my SD handgun?" The answer is, "Enough." [punctuation revised]

There is another consideration regarding power: "How much power is too much?" For every shooter there is a limit.

There is no penalty for having more than needed.

But there is. With the stress of being under attack, we're going to shoot less well than we do at the range no matter how good we think we are. Sending out-of-control uber-stopper rounds whizzing past the BG and into a child or an old lady probably may not save the shooter but will without a doubt cause much trouble of many kinds.

Given those little tidbits, would it not be prudent to carry a round that is less powerful than the most powerful you can shoot well under controlled conditions?

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 04:32 PM

JR47, if expanded caliber didn't matter, everyone would be carrying a .22 LR with high velocity FMJ rounds. As it is, expanded caliber makes it SLIGHTLY more likely you will hit something vital that the other round misses. And it comes at a cost, generally a combination of recoil, platform size, and capacity.

For a comparison, in order to at least nick a 3 inch circle; a 0.65" diameter bullet can hit an area 18% larger than that of a 0.357" bullet and still hit the 3" circle.

The Kicker: There is no penalty for having more than needed. The penalties for having less than needed can be harsh, up to and including death.

I disagree. More power always comes at a cost, including weight, recoil, size, and capacity. If there was no penalty for having more than needed, we'd all carry .50 AE desert eagles.

So the question becomes where is the happy medium. Where do you get the most power with the least additional cost. I believe that limit is where JHPs start to work well, and with the standard cartridges available, that is above the .380 and at the level of the 9.

ETA: Fixed the term "expanded velocity" to mean "expanded caliber". That's an interesting term I accidentally made.

lobo9er

December 6, 2012, 05:07 PM

.......

3twelves

December 6, 2012, 05:12 PM

inb4 the lock

David E

December 6, 2012, 05:16 PM

How can you possibly know that every person that's going to try to kill you is so determined that they won't stop by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom?

How can YOU possibly know that the person trying to kill you will stop upon seeing your gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom?

If you believe your own post, then you must only carry blanks (muzzle flash/big boom) since that would works against the sissy badguys you are confident you'll be attacked by. :rolleyes:

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 06:41 PM

How can YOU possibly know that the person trying to kill you will stop upon seeing your gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom?
I don't, but I do recognize that it's a possibility. Of course I also recognize they may not stop even though they may be fatally wounded, which is why I don't carry blanks.
I have also seen a boar run 200 yards after being shot with a 270 Win, with a heart that would have been no less functional if you'd have shot with a case of 9mm and a case of 380. So I'm not under any dilusions that a 9mm COM is any more likely to physicly stop the BG from shooting to slide lock from blood loss.

David E

December 6, 2012, 07:06 PM

I don't, but I do recognize that it's a possibility.

As do I. Actually, just about everyone recognizes that possibility.

Of course I also recognize they may not stop even though they may be fatally wounded,

As do I. Actually, just about everyone recognizes that possibility.

What was your "point" ?

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 07:41 PM

David E
Which is it? post 118 you claim any person trying to kill you is "someone in particular really REALLY wants to kill YOU! Those people must be physically stopped, not stopped by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom."
But now you say realize it is a possibility that the person trying to kill you may stop "by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom."

Teachu2

December 6, 2012, 08:06 PM

There is another consideration regarding power: "How much power is too much?" For every shooter there is a limit.

But there is. With the stress of being under attack, we're going to shoot less well than we do at the range no matter how good we think we are. Sending out-of-control uber-stopper rounds whizzing past the BG and into a child or an old lady probably may not save the shooter but will without a doubt cause much trouble of many kinds.

Given those little tidbits, would it not be prudent to carry a round that is less powerful than the most powerful you can shoot well under controlled conditions?
I addressed skillset in the same post. Sorry if you did not read or comprehend it all.

Teachu2

December 6, 2012, 08:07 PM

JR47, if expanded caliber didn't matter, everyone would be carrying a .22 LR with high velocity FMJ rounds. As it is, expanded caliber makes it SLIGHTLY more likely you will hit something vital that the other round misses. And it comes at a cost, generally a combination of recoil, platform size, and capacity.

For a comparison, in order to at least nick a 3 inch circle; a 0.65" diameter bullet can hit an area 18% larger than that of a 0.357" bullet and still hit the 3" circle.

I disagree. More power always comes at a cost, including weight, recoil, size, and capacity. If there was no penalty for having more than needed, we'd all carry .50 AE desert eagles.

So the question becomes where is the happy medium. Where do you get the most power with the least additional cost. I believe that limit is where JHPs start to work well, and with the standard cartridges available, that is above the .380 and at the level of the 9.

ETA: Fixed the term "expanded velocity" to mean "expanded caliber". That's an interesting term I accidentally made.
See previous post.

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 09:05 PM

Mavracer, just because something bigger failed to stop a target doesn't mean it is just as bad at stopping targets. If a car crashes through a brick wall, does that mean that brick is just as weak as drywall, because the car could have also crashed through drywall?

mljdeckard

December 6, 2012, 09:33 PM

I'm not reading the whole thing, all I will add is that there are no guarantees. NONE. My unit in Afghanistan called in an air strike on some bad guys, and captured one of them in the next village with a 30mm hole through his shoulder.

No handgun is magical. Some people in here seem to think that a .380 will have no effect at all on an attacker, but any of the other service calibers will physically stop someone. This is total gibberish. The most likely outcome of ANY hit with a service caliber is that the target will RUN AWAY. Not fall over. Not explode. Not get knocked backwards.

I never said that a .380 EQUALS a 9mm. I said some loads (like the ones from Double-tap,) overlap into their range.

481

December 6, 2012, 09:37 PM

I'm not reading the whole thing, all I will add is that there are no guarantees. NONE. My unit in Afghanistan called in an air strike on some bad guys, and captured one of them in the next village with a 30mm hole through his shoulder.

Wow! :what:

David E

December 6, 2012, 09:39 PM

David E
Which is it? post 118 you claim any person trying to kill you is "someone in particular really REALLY wants to kill YOU! Those people must be physically stopped, not stopped by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom."
But now you say realize it is a possibility that the person trying to kill you may stop "by seeing the gun, seeing the muzzle flash or hearing a big boom."

<sigh>. Once again mavracer misunderstands my response to another post. .

I do not plan to shoot a badguy who is actively trying to kill me once to "show I mean it," then again to "stop" them in case that first "hey! I'm serious here!" shot fails to convince the badguy I "really mean it." That's just plain stupid.

As I stated, each shot I fire will be with the goal of stopping the badguy as soon as possible.

Then, mavracer asks the curiously inane question of how can I possibly know the badguy won't stop when he sees my muzzle, sees the flash and/or hears the bang?

How can that possibly matter? The badguy is actively trying to kill me! That's why i want to shoot him!

What is he suggesting, that we should draw our nickel plated gun (for maximum visibility) count "one Mississippi, two Mississippi" to give the badguy a chance to run away? To buy the ammo with the biggest, brightest flash and loudest report to give the badguy a second chance to stop and run away if he wasn't impressed by the sight of my tactically nickeled defense gun?

My mindset is this: the badguy is making the decision for me as to if he's getting shot or not. If he poops his pants upon seeing my gun muzzle and runs away, I won't shoot him. If he does not.....

Tcruse

December 6, 2012, 09:47 PM

I like 380ACP out of a Baretta 84, good feel, seems like it would be effective enough. 9mm out of my Glock 26 or Glock 17 feels no more recoil and just as accurate.
I can practice 50% more with the 9mm than I can with the 380ACP. I think that makes a difference. I can carry the G26 with several different methods all day and not notice that it is there. I think that many people choose guns that are too small to use and practice with. Good ammo in 9, 40 or 45 meet the FBI specs, 380ACP does not (for the most part).

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 10:21 PM

David, you and I are at odds in some other posts, but I agree with you in this post.

beatledog7

December 6, 2012, 10:23 PM

Teachu2,

I read #126 and comprehended it fully. You wrote:

Toolset will be determined by Mindset and Skillset. Carry the most powerful, highest capacity weapon you can that satisfies Mindset and Skillset.

Mindset deals most generally with how one views his CCW responsibilities, I realize. But it also relates directly to skill set and tool set; none of the three can be isolated from the other two. So, what about the CCWer whose self assessment of his mindset and skill set are way off base?

Too many people select a carry caliber based on its proclaimed stopping power and then don't bother becoming any good with the gun that fires it. We've all seen a shooter who finds he can slow-fire a whole mag of 230-gr JHP uber-bullets more or less into a silhouette at 7yrds from his M&P 45, and he thinks that's all it takes. He believes he has the right mindset and has developed the right skill set with his chosen tool set. He has no idea (mindset issue) that he's not very good (skill set issue) with a gun that has more power for its weight than he can handle (tool set issue). His ability to execute accurate shots under stress is gonna be even worse than at the range, but he'll never believe it and will pack that .45 around thinking he's all set because he read on the Internet that it's the only choice for a real man (or some similar load of crap).

The shooter I described could probably become a good shooter with his featherweight .45, but he isn't there yet and won't ever be given his current thinking. Give him a proper tool for his current ability, say, a steel 9mm, and he'll probably shoot better groups at the range, which translates, generally, to a better chance of getting hits under duress. I dare say the over-gunned CCWer is more common than we'd like to believe.

David E

December 6, 2012, 10:45 PM

I dare say the over-gunned CCWer is more common than we'd like to believe.

I dare say, sadly, most CCW'ers are under-gunned and under-skilled.

mavracer

December 6, 2012, 10:54 PM

Dave
I forgot you can't keep from personal attacks.

IBTL

orionengnr

December 6, 2012, 10:57 PM

And entirely too many licensed CCW/CHL/CPL-call-it-what-you-will holders do not even carry daily.

Talk about being undergunned... :)

Skribs

December 6, 2012, 11:20 PM

And entirely too many licensed CCW/CHL/CPL-call-it-what-you-will holders do not even carry daily.

Yep. Ever since I thought about it and realized that if someone broke in while I was on the other side of the house even, and my gun was locked in the safe, then I might as well not have dropped all the money on the gun, accessories, ammo, and potentially training, because it's doing me no good at that point.

If your gun isn't ON YOU when attacked, then it's about as useful as using a thermometer to tell time.

toivo

December 6, 2012, 11:26 PM

Are you going to notice a little more recoil in a SD scenario? NO
Felt recoil is one thing; muzzle flip is another. Of all the handguns I own, my PF9 is the hardest to keep on target. I don't care if you've got a grip like King Kong on an adrenaline rush -- when you pull the trigger on that featherweight 9, it's going to jump. The long DA trigger pull doesn't help, but the real issue is the power-to-weight ratio. I feel much better with my Glock 26 or, better yet, SIG P239. I'm not sold on the mini-9 concept.

weblance

December 7, 2012, 12:04 AM

Ive got a Kel Tec P32, with a 10 round magazine. I also have an LCP which I dont trust. Its just not as reliable as I want it to be. Every time I take it to the range, it will malfunction at least once. So... I dont carry it. I carry the Kel-Tec, because it hasnt malfunctioned in over 400 rounds. So, for me, its a 32ACP with 11 rounds. I feel that will get me outta trouble, cause with this little gun, there will be NO ONE SHOT STOPS.

Gary A

December 7, 2012, 12:12 AM

TimboKhan got it right in post #101 - "This is getting snarky for no good reason."

lobo9er

December 7, 2012, 12:16 AM

.380 threads get snarky quicker than "Bear Gun" threads

CZguy

December 7, 2012, 12:53 AM

.380 threads get snarky quicker than "Bear Gun" threads

Or "best lubricant" threads.

One common aspect, seems to be how high emotions can run, if someone chooses something different that what they choose.

Originally Posted by mljdeckard
I'm not reading the whole thing, all I will add is that there are no guarantees. NONE. My unit in Afghanistan called in an air strike on some bad guys, and captured one of them in the next village with a 30mm hole through his shoulder.

I have a tremendous respect for the GAU 8, 30MM and if that won't guarantee a one shot stop, then bickering about pistol calibers is kind of pointless.

All handguns are compromises, so just carry what you feel comfortable with.

I carry a Kahr P45 during the week, and a Kahr P380 on Sunday.

Certaindeaf

December 7, 2012, 01:11 AM

http://www.wjm2234.com/ebay/1911/ad-1911-colt-bear.jpg

David E

December 7, 2012, 01:28 AM

David, you and I are at odds in some other posts, but I agree with you in this post.

You realize I'm right in the other posts too, right?

:D

David E

December 7, 2012, 01:31 AM

Dave
I forgot you can't keep from personal attacks.

Nothing personal about you or anyone else in anything I posted here.

I have not trashed the .380 or any other caliber in this thread.

I recently started a thread about making hits on a 100 yd target using pocket .22's and .25's. I didn't mention in that thread that I also made hits with my P-238 and 2" Model 642

These guns and calibers are capable of more than most folks think. But in my view, for maximum effectiveness, they require different tactics than larger calibers.

JohnBT

December 7, 2012, 11:28 AM

Is making lucky shots from not too far away a tactic? ;)

John

mavracer

December 7, 2012, 01:11 PM

Mavracer, just because something bigger failed to stop a target doesn't mean it is just as bad at stopping targets. If a car crashes through a brick wall, does that mean that brick is just as weak as drywall, because the car could have also crashed through drywall?
The problem here is I've seen the car not stopped by a brick wall (hi powered rifle) and your trying to argue that 5/8" sheet rock (9MM) is WAY better for stopping cars than 3/8" sheet rock (380). I expect the car to blow right through the sheet rock.

Which is why IMHO it's a bad idea to change your tactics because your carrying a larger service caliber.

beatledog7

December 7, 2012, 01:44 PM

Is making lucky shots from not too far away a tactic?

A shot taken from too far away is no longer a tactic: it's a strategy.

Frank Ettin

December 7, 2012, 02:06 PM

Cars, brick walls, long shots, bears ...... Let's end this now before things get sillier.

If you enjoyed reading about "The concept of 380 vs more powerful rounds" here in TheHighRoad.org archive, you'll LOVE our community. Come join TheHighRoad.org today for the full version!